The Intelligentsia, National Unity and Peace

Dr. Ruwantissa ABEYRATNE

Mahinda Chintana starts with “wisdom and virtue are essential for the physical development of a person”. There is every indication in this statement that the President is placing his trust in the intelligentsia of the country.

The word “intelligentsia” is a derivative of the Latin word intelligentsia and refers to a social class of virtuous intellectual involved in complex mental and creative labour directed to the development and dissemination of culture, with the active engagement of intellectuals and social groups close to them.

Intelligentsia includes artists and teachers. The etymology of the term also lies in the Russian language where the word is “intelligentsiya”, and Polish which is “inteligencja”.

Those two were earlier borrowed from the French word “intelligence”.

Initially the term was applied mostly in the context of Poland Russia and later Soviet Union and had a narrower meaning based on a self-definition of a certain category of intellectuals.

The notion of an intellectual elite as a distinguished social stratum can be traced far back in history. Examples are the philosopher kings and guardians of Plato’s Republic and monks in medieval Europe, who are now seen as custodians of history and culture.

The intelligentsia play a critical role in national unity, particularly at times of war when National Governments are formed.

National Governments (alternatively national unity governments or national union governments) are broad coalition governments consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature and are often formed during times of war or national emergency.

History records several instances where National Governments were formed on the basis of national unity when members of the opposition party joined the ruling party to form a robust legislature to cope with a national crisis.

This goes to show that there is a strong possibility that a national crisis could be overcome with the active involvement of the intelligentsia of a country. Such involvement brings with it wisdom and pragmatism.

Harold Bloom, Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale University and a former professor at Harvard, states in his book, “Where shall Wisdom be Found”, that there are three criteria that impel him to go on reading and teaching: aesthetic splendour, intellectual power and wisdom. Of these, the last is perhaps the most useful for survival.

Wisdom is the ability to make correct judgments and decisions, and remains an intangible quality gained through experience.

A standard philosophical approach to wisdom is that it involves making the best use of available knowledge.

However, as with all decisions, a wise decision may be made with incomplete information. The technical philosophical term for the opposite of wisdom is folly. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle defines wisdom as knowledge of causes: why things are the way they are.

In the context of the above approaches to wisdom, one could draw a distinct link between the application of wisdom and a peace process between two parties. At its most simplistic level, the word “peace” entails the absence of war.

The ancient Romans defined peace, Pax, as Absentia Belli, or the absence of war. Peace is many things to many different people around the world.

Invariably, the meaning of the word “peace” changes with context. Peace may refer specifically to an agreement concluded to end a war, or to a lack of external warfare, or to a period when a country’s armies are not fighting enemies.

It can also refer more generally to quietude, such as that common at night or in remote areas, allowing for sleep or meditation. Peace can be an emotion or internal state. And finally, peace can be any combination of these definitions.

A person’s conception of “peace” is often the product of culture and upbringing, as is a nation’s concept of peace is essentially influenced by the cultural ethos of its people . People of different cultures sometimes disagree about the meaning of the word, and so do people within any given culture.

Peace is not a symbol, peace is a mindset. Joseph de Revera, Professor of Psychology at Clark University in the United States, in an article published in the UN Chronicle, is of the view that this set of objective indicators could be used to measure the degree to which nations posses a culture of peace.

These measures are benchmarks which need to be approached on the basis of a study of strengths and weaknesses of a nation headed towards the goals of creating and nurturing a society that would attain a complete culture of peace.

A complete culture of peace could only prevail if those responsible on both sides establish that the fundamental goal in a peace process is to make the people content and raise their quality of living while providing them with opportunities that they rightfully seek.

The heart of wisdom should essentially lie in the legislature.

The head of a country and his ministers are the best example of intelligentsia as they can both lead by example and engage other intellectuals outside the legislature. Ministers do make a difference both individually through their own style of governance and through the public servants they lead.

Collective ministerial responsibility, based almost entirely on Constitutional convention, involves three principles-the confidence rule, cabinet solidarity, and cabinet confidentiality.

These principles help ensure that the prime minister and all cabinet ministers pursue a policy consistent with the priorities of their party, which won the support of the majority of the voters.

The level below the minister- the public service - is the next rung of the intelligentsia ladder. Experts in public service are specialists in various fields and it is not prudent to expect the same management style from them.

They work in a common institutional structure governed by the same legal framework and therefore are subject to common opportunities and constraints. Civil servants have the common objective of public service for the good of the public and are subject to public scrutiny and accountability.

One of the deleterious effects of this new approach toward making the public service more like a private enterprise was that working for the collective good of the public, which was the essence of prudent public service, was shrouded by individual considerations of acquisition, self centred gain and economic interest.

The blurring of boundaries between the public service and private sector individualism brought about a certain Darwinian world of survival of the fittest who had predatory appetites which consumed not only the competition but also the public.

In Mahinda Chinthana, the President goes on to say “I would abide by the majority consensus which is a fundamental premise of democracy...public opinion will be represented and stable governments will be elected...let us be inspired by the challenges before us.. .let us march forward to present Mother Lanka with a prosperous future...” There is no doubt that he is depending on the intelligent and the virtuous around him to support him in this endeavour.